Piotr Konieczny wrote: > Matthew Flaschen wrote: > >> I'm not at all clear how you arrived at the figure "8 millions vandal >> sockpuppet accounts", nor what you mean by it. However, it doesn't >> follow from the figures you've cited. Rather, I believe most of the 8.5 >> million user accounts are simply inactive. Someone made an edit, >> constructive or not, then left, and did not return with that account (at >> least not yet). > > For me, such editors are part of our community of volunteers.
Okay, that's your definition of "community of volunteers". Lots of people have their own definiton of volunteer and/or active user (as was recently discussed here). But clearly what the stat means is that there are/were 150,000 active users (for some value of active), which it is calling a community of volunteers. It is not trying to denigrate those who contribute rarely; it's just making a different point. > Of course, we may dispute whether all volunteers are a part of > community; but the main point here is whether the current official > Wikimedia Foundation number of "a global community of more than 150,000 > volunteers" isn't a serious under estimation? Again, no, once you understand the meaning of the phrase. > Do we know the global edit redistribution per users? I.e. how many users > made 0 edits, how many made 1, how many made 10,000... a graph would be > quite useful. This can be calculated from the dumps. I haven't seen any with that level of granularity. Matt Flaschen _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
